Change in AIM wording concerning procedure turn

rps wrote:
Doesn't the underlining just mean that the text was added?

I guess the FAA is just stating the obvious: you don't need to do a PT
when you're already inbound.

That's not what they are saying at all. You could be inbound yet not
have arrived via a vector to final, a timed approach, or a NoPT route.

Usually, that would mean that you're too high to go straight-in, at
least by the standards used in TERPS for descent gradients.

I'm a brand new instrument pilot, but I read this kind of thing for a
living, so my opinion may not be realistic, just legalistic, but here goes:

A procedure turn is the maneuver prescribed when it is necessary to
perform a course reversal to establish the aircraft inbound on an
intermediate or final approach course

means that if you need to perform a course reversal, you need to do a PT.
Otherwise, you don't. The following language:

The procedure turn is not required when the symbol "No PT" is shown,
when RADAR VECTORING to the final approach course is provided, when
conducting a timed approach, or when the procedure turn is not
authorized.

lists some exceptions, but doesn't change the first requirement which means
that even if you need to do a course reversal, you don't have to do a PT if
one of these exceptions applies.It doesn't mean that you need to do a PT
unless one of the exceptions applies, the original definition still applies,
no course reversal, no PT. I didn't look up the definition of course
reversal.

This makes sense to me at least in the following case, if you are inbound
from the opposite direction, and receiving radar vectors, you would normally
need to do a course reversal, so a PT would be required, but ATC will vector
you around to the final approach course usually sort of rectangularly. Since
this is a listed exception, you don't need to do a PT. If you weren't
getting vectors, or one of the other exceptions didn't apply, then a PT
would be required.

If you are inbound on a course that doesn't require a course reversal, no PT
is required even if none of the exceptions applies.

Brad




wrote in message
nk.net...
rps wrote:
Doesn't the underlining just mean that the text was added?

I guess the FAA is just stating the obvious: you don't need to do a PT
when you're already inbound.

That's not what they are saying at all. You could be inbound yet not
have arrived via a vector to final, a timed approach, or a NoPT route.

Usually, that would mean that you're too high to go straight-in, at
least by the standards used in TERPS for descent gradients.

On Fri, 30 Sep 2005 08:08:45 GMT, "Brad Salai"
wrote:

If you are inbound on a course that doesn't require a course reversal, no PT
is required even if none of the exceptions applies.

I think what you are missing is that the determination as to whether or not
a course reversal is required has to do with the verbiage on the FAA forms
that define the SIAP (standard instrument approach procedure) and not on
what you as the pilot might determine at the time you are executing the
approach.

The FAA forms (8260 series) are (mostly) based on TERPs and those
approaches are incorporated by reference into 14 CFR 97.20(b), making the
procedures regulatory (refer back to 14 CFR 91.175(a)).


Ron (EPM) (N5843Q, Mooney M20E) (CP, ASEL, ASES, IA)

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.

"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.


I believe you just answered your question.

"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"rps" wrote in message
oups.com...

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.


I believe you just answered your question.

Even if the intention is to mark all such courses NoPT, there's always the
possibility that a NoPT gets omitted due to a charting error or a TERPS
design error. And the question arises in that case: is the PT required or
not? On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new wording, it's still
required; on the other reasonable interpretation, it's not.

--Gary

"Gary Drescher" wrote in message
...

Even if the intention is to mark all such courses NoPT, there's always the
possibility that a NoPT gets omitted due to a charting error or a TERPS
design error. And the question arises in that case: is the PT required or
not?


Not.



On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new wording, it's still
required; on the other reasonable interpretation, it's not.


If it's required the requirement will be found in the FARs, and you will
find no FAR that requires it. The AIM is not regulatory.

Gary Drescher wrote:
"Steven P. McNicoll" wrote in message
nk.net...

"rps" wrote in message
groups.com...

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.


I believe you just answered your question.


Even if the intention is to mark all such courses NoPT, there's always the
possibility that a NoPT gets omitted due to a charting error or a TERPS
design error. And the question arises in that case: is the PT required or
not? On one reasonable interpretation of the AIM's new wording, it's still
required; on the other reasonable interpretation, it's not.

--Gary


The new AIM verbage is in error. The coordination was messed up, so
someone with a less than global view of it did some incorrect editing.
Following is part of an email sent yesterday by the person in the FAA
who understands this stuff and whose office should have issued any
change (no change was necessary, actually):

"We need to get AIM paragraph 5-4-9a fixed and clarify this in the IPG!
This is how the flying public is interpreting this and as you know, this
isn't the first time this has come up. The way it is written: 'The
procedure turn or hold in lieu of procedure turn is a required maneuver
when it is necessary to perform a course reversal' is way to open-ended
and leaves it up to the pilot to make this decision and the controller
to guess (or be surprised) what the pilot is doing."

In article et,
Steven P. McNicoll wrote:

"rps" wrote in message
roups.com...

Suppose I'm on an approach in which the IAP leads me to the inbound
course at the correct altitude (no radar), am I supposed to execute a
PT? That doesn't make sense to me. ATC would not have authorized
anyone else to be in that airspace so aircraft separation isn't a
problem and there is no need to lose altitude or change course so
obstacle clearance shouldn't be an issue.

Maybe there are no such approaches, or perhaps all such courses are
marked NoPT.


I believe you just answered your question.

The problem is not when you're on a published route which happens to
be properly aligned with the FAC and have a low enough altitude that
descent gradient is not a problem. Those are all already taken care
of by having NoPT on the plate.

The problem comes in when you're on a random route such as direct to
the IAF/FAF. You can be between two airways converging on the IAF,
both of which are marked NoPT (and at the same altitude marked for
those routes), and yet you're not on a NoPT segment yourself. I think
most people would agree that it's reasonable to assume that not doing
a PT in this case is perfectly safe. The question which leads to
endless debate is whether it's legal or not.

"Roy Smith" wrote in message
...

The problem comes in when you're on a random route such as direct to
the IAF/FAF. You can be between two airways converging on the IAF,
both of which are marked NoPT (and at the same altitude marked for
those routes), and yet you're not on a NoPT segment yourself. I think
most people would agree that it's reasonable to assume that not doing
a PT in this case is perfectly safe. The question which leads to
endless debate is whether it's legal or not.


How did you come to be on that random route? You say you're not on an
airway, so you must be either within usable navaid limits or in radar
contact. If you're within usable navaid limits, why isn't the route also
published with a NoPT? If you're in radar contact, why weren't you vectored
for the approach, which would negate flying the PT?